As a form of appeal to novelty, chronological snobbery considers modern ideas superior to those from earlier ages. This fallacy specifically targets ideas from art, culture, science, philosophy.
Example 1: “Traditional art is nothing compared to modern art. The techniques and rules of the past are forgotten, that’s why modern art is superior.”
The speaker makes an argument that modern art is superior because it has nothing associated with traditional art. Therefore, the fallacy occurs. The love for novelty and the dismissal of everything old-fashioned is evident.
Example 2: “How can anyone think that cathedrals are more beautiful than skyscrapers? Skyscrapers are made with modern technology, that’s all the evidence I need.”
Again, the speaker is comparing traditional religious architecture with modern architecture. The premise for the conclusion is the recentness of the building.
The problem with chronological snobbery
First, the speaker who makes this kind of argument enters with a built-in assumption. Considering everything that is modern to be superior, and considering everything old-fashioned or antique to be naive.
Second, the speaker takes novelty as a valid premise for a conclusion. A premise should support a conclusion, not tell us how new something is.
Consider Example 1. Although there are some aestheticians who really think that modern art is superior, they do not appeal to novelty for proof. Their theory is based on critical examination of art: modern art exists for itself; modern art can be reproduced, etc. If you are comparing a modern artist with Leonardo da Vinci, you should offer serious proof, not newness.
In Example 2, the same mistake is made. The speaker assumes that beauty depends on how modern something is. Of course, you could argue that skyscrapers are more beautiful than cathedrals, but affirmative proof is needed. Cathedrals are symbols of power, while skyscrapers offer homes that must be beautiful and comfortable is one way to go. Appealing to novelty is certainly not.
Rejection of the past
So, we concluded that disregarding the past is a big part of the chronological snobbery fallacy. But why is that so? Is the rejection of the past justified?
The simple answer is no. We reject the notion of ideas, not the time in which they were formed. We consider Democritus’ idea of the atom not because it is outdated but because he thought the atom to be indivisible. It was later found out that the atom can be divided into smaller parts, and then into energy.
Denying an idea takes a critical examination. So, if we were to reject an idea from the past, we must find out why it is no longer in use. Was it ineffective or it was forgotten over time? Also, we can find the roots of modern ideas in antiquity. Is there really such a thing as something “modern”?